Denise, (01)
> Thanks for this good summary. We are using the term 'repository' but we mean
> essentially a registry not the storage of actual ontologies, correct? In the
> latter case, we would need an additional set of requirements. (02)
--->>> I've heard both notions bandied about. Operationally, I think [an] OORx
will have both types of entities. Some organizations will want to have
or provide persistence while others may only wish to host a registry.
This is an architectural decision that will need to be made. In my mind
I think the functionality among a registry and a repository can be
partitioned in such a way that will allow plug-n-play deployment and
operation. (03)
I will argue for a distributed non-hierarchal architecture (e.g. flat
P2P) to meet operational needs. (04)
And yes, there are many additional requirements that will need to be
filled in. I was aiming for the high-level generic ones before we get
lost in the requisite details. As Leo has pointed out everything will
not be realized in the first version. Thus we need to partition the
requirements in a fashion that makes them (i.e. the high level
requirements) fairly independent. (05)
Todd (06)
>
> Best regards,
> Denise
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
> Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository
>
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (08)
|